OCS Case Neg

Solvency

1NC Frontline
Even without restrictions no one will invest in it. Its too risky.
Nelder 2009 [Chris Nelder energy analyst and journalist April 29th, 2009 Energy
and Capital Facts and Myths About Offshore Oil: Can We Drill Our Way To Energy
Independence? http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/offshore-oil-drilling/870]
Offshore oil is expensive, and deepwater oilwells drilled in more than 1000 feet of
wateris more expensive still. Leasing rates for high specification drillships able to
produce oil from deepwater formations have run as high as $600,000 per day, which
is why we have liked our deepwater drilling players for a long time now. Consider
the economics of the Mars field as an example. At a water depth of 2,940 feet, it is
believed to contain 500 million barrels of oil equivalent. The platform produces
some 220,000 barrels per day, at a reported development cost of $100 million. Prior
to the development of BPs Thunder Horse platform, it was the most advanced
platform in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, where the best prospects for new US oil
production are. The Mars platform was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and rebuilt
by Shell at a reported cost of $200 million. (By comparison, the Thunder Horse
platform produces oil at about the same rate, but has a total cost of around $5
billion.) Deepwater oil also remains a very risky enterprise, even with modern
seismic imaging technology. This week Contango Oil & Gas Co. (AMEX: MCF)
reported that it would take a $12.5 million write-off for drilling a dry hole in the Gulf
of Mexico. It takes a fluid and committed credit market to sustain that kind of risk,
but the world is still in the grips of a credit market freeze.

2NC

Cant Solve- Timeframe

Doesnt solve fast enough
Alterman and Zornick 2008 [Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center
for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College,
and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and
George Zornick is a New York-based writer June 26, 2008 Think Again: Drilling Deep
to Mislead on Oil Prices
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2008/06/26/4486/think-againdrilling-deep-to-mislead-on-oil-prices/]
The U.S. Department of Energy summarizes the crux of the issue: Access to the
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on
domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would
begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before
2017.

Cant Solve- Doesnt Affect Prices

Offshore drilling cant affect prices
NRDC 2011 [NRDC 5/17/2011 Natural Resources Defense Council Domestic Oil
Drilling Still Not a Solution to Rising Gas Prices
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/oildrilling/]
Projections from the Energy Information Administration indicate that an expansion
of offshore drilling wouldn't lower gas prices until 2030 , and then by only a few
cents per gallon. With only two percent of the world's reserves, the U.S. contribution
to the global market could never be high enough to significantly alter world oil
prices.

Its 1 percent of global production- thats with the most

generous estimates
McAuliff 11 [Michael McAuliff 05/06/11 Huffington Post More U.S. Oil Drilling
Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gasprices_n_858473.html]
"What comes out of the OCS is about 1 percent of the world total, and that's not
enough to affect world prices," Martin said, even noting that she believes there are
even more untapped reserves than officials can estimate at the moment.

Econ Answers

1NC Frontline
Natural gas industry is sustainable
Economist 2012 [The Economist Jun 2nd 2012 Shale of the century
http://www.economist.com/node/21556242]
AMERICA'S unconventional gas boom continues to amaze. Between 2005 and
2010 the country's shale-gas industry, which produces natural gas from shale rock
by bombarding it with water and chemicalsa technique known as hydraulic
fracturing, or frackinggrew by 45% a year. As a proportion of America's overall
gas production shale gas has increased from 4% in 2005 to 24% today. America
produces more gas than it knows what to do with. Its storage facilities are rapidly
filling, and its gas price (prices for gas, unlike oil, are set regionally) has collapsed.
Last month it dipped below $2 per million British thermal units (mBtu): less than a
sixth of the pre-boom price and too low for producers to break even. Those are
problems most European and Asian countries, which respectively pay roughly four
and six times more for their gas, would relish. America's gas boom confers a huge
economic advantage. It has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, directly and
indirectly. And it has rejuvenated several industries, including petrochemicals,
where ethane produced from natural gas is a feedstock. The gas price is likely to
rise in the next few years, because of increasing demand. Peter Voser, the boss of
Royal Dutch Shell, an oil firm with big shale-gas investments, expects it to double by
2015. Yet it will remain below European and Asian prices, so the industry should still
grow. America is estimated to have enough gas to sustain its current
production rate for over a century.

Cant solve- The gas industry inflates employment numbers

wrong multiplier, multiplier misuse, ignoring negative
employment effects
Food and Water Watch, Exposing the Oil and Gas Industrys False Jobs Promise for
Shale Gas Development, November 2011,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FalseJobsPromiseReport.pdf, accessed
6-19-2012.
PPINYS incorrectly projected the economic spillover effects from direct job creation
by selecting the wrong employment multiplier, and then misusing this multiplier .
PPINYS stated that it used a Type II employment multiplier of 3.04, but using this
multiplier correctly would have meant that 15,500 direct jobs would lead to 47,120
total jobs. Instead, PPINYS wrongly claimed that 15,500 direct jobs would lead to
47,120 indirect and induced jobs, for a total of 62,620 jobs; and PPINYS incorrectly
assumed, when it selected 3.04 as an employment multiplier, that all direct jobs
created through shale gas development spending would be in the gas industry. In
fact, most of the direct jobs would be created in other industries , and the
employment multipliers for these other industries are smaller than the gas industry
multiplier. Based on the findings of a report led by the lead author of the Penn State

study and funded by the American Petroleum Institute, an employment multiplier of

1.92 better estimates the potential total jobs across industries created by shale gas
development in New York in 2015. Multiplying this employment multiplier with the
corrected direct jobs estimate results in a corrected PPINYS estimate of 6,656 total
jobs (roughly 1.92 times the corrected PPINYS projection of 3,469 direct jobs). Even
if this corrected PPINYS total jobs projection 6,656 total jobs, down from 62,620
total jobs were to become reality, it would be insignificant next to overall
employment in New York State. To put the number in perspective, it is less than 0.1
percent of projected employment in 2018 in the state of New York, which is
projected to be 9,726,760. Yet it is still overly optimistic to predict that 6,656 new
jobs would be sustained in New York by 2018 from the drilling of 500 new wells each
year, relative to a baseline of no drilling. The corrected PPINYS projection remains
based on industry-supplied spending data and the dubious use of economic
forecasting models, not on actual employment data from regions with shale gas
development. Unlike forecasting models, actual employment data account for the
negative impact that shale gas development has had on employment in other
economic sectors, such as agriculture and tourism. Indeed, Food & Water Watch
analysis of actual employment data from five Pennsylvania counties adjacent to the
five New York counties used in the PPINYS scenario suggested that shale gas
development could have far less of an impact than even the corrected PPINYS
projection. Local, state and federal policymakers should look to actual employment
data, not dubious economic forecasts, when evaluating whether the supposed
benefits of allowing shale gas development are sufficient to justify short-term and
long-term costs to public health and the environment.

Econ resilient
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System
Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IRColloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
It is equally possible, however, that a renewed crisis would trigger a renewed surge
in policy coordination. As John Ikenberry has observed, the complex interdependence that is
unleashed in an open and loosely rule-based order generates some expanding realms of
exchange and investment that result in a growing array of firms, interest groups and other
sorts of political stakeholders who seek to preserve the stability and openness of the
system.103 The post-2008 economic order has remained open , entrenching
these interests even more across the globe. Despite uncertain times, the open
economic system that has been in operation since 1945 does not appear to be closing anytime
soon .

Econ collapse doesnt cause war prefer our studies

Samuel Bazzi (Department of Economics at University of California San Diego)
and Christopher Blattman (assistant professor of political science and
economics at Yale University) November 2011 Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence

of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices

http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConflict.pdf?9d7bd4
VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability and conflict The state is not a
prize?Warlord politics and the state prize logic lie at the center of the most influential models of conflict, state

we see no evidence for this

idea in economic shocks, even when looking at the friendliest cases : fragile and
unconstrained states dominated by extractive commodity revenues. Indeed, we see
the opposite correlation: if anything, higher rents from commodity prices weakly 22
lower the risk and length of conflict . Perhaps shocks are the wrong test. Stocks of resources could
development, and political transitions in economics and political science. Yet

matter more than price shocks (especially if shocks are transitory). But combined with emerging evidence that war
onset is no more likely even with rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we
regard the state prize logic of war with skepticism.17

Our main political economy models may

need a new engine.

Naturally, an absence of evidence cannot be taken for evidence of absence. Many of our
conflict onset and ending results include sizeable positive and negative effects.18 Even so, commodity price shocks
are highly influential in income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation in instability. It is difficult to
find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly exogenous independent variable than price volatility.

Moreover, other time-varying variables, like rainfall and foreign aid, exhibit robust
correlations with conflict in spite of suffering similar empirical drawbacks and
generally smaller sample sizes (Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we
take the absence of evidence seriously. Do resource revenues drive state capacity?State prize models
assume that rising revenues raise the value of the capturing the state, but have ignored or downplayed the effect of revenues on
self-defense. We saw that a growing empirical political science literature takes just such a revenue-centered approach, illustrating
that resource boom times permit both payoffs and repression, and that stocks of lootable or extractive resources can bring political
order and stability. This countervailing effect is most likely with transitory shocks, as current revenues are affected while long term
value is not. Our findings are partly consistent with this state capacity effect. For example, conflict intensity is most sensitive to
changes in the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural crops that affect household incomes more directly. The
relationship only holds for conflict intensity, however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large, consistent or robust decline in
conflict or coup risk when prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that the state prize and state capacity effects are either small or
tend to cancel one another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?Finally, the inverse relationship between prices and war
intensity is consistent with opportunity cost accounts, but not exclusively so. As we noted above, the relationship between intensity
and extractive commodity prices is more consistent with the state capacity view. Moreover, we shouldnt mistake an inverse relation
between individual aggression and incomes as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism. The same correlation is consistent with
psychological theories of stress and aggression (Berkowitz 1993) and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and
anomie (Merton 1938; Gurr 1971). Microempirical work will be needed to distinguish between these mechanisms. Other reasons for
a null result.Ultimately,

however, the fact that commodity price shocks have no

discernible effect on new conflict onsets, but some effect on ongoing conflict,
suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to income or temporary
shocks than generally believed. One possibility is that successfully mounting an
insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs, and coordination
challenges. Another possibility is that the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In
poor and fragile nations, income shocks of one type or another are ubiquitous. If a
nation is so fragile that a change in prices could lead to war , then other shocks may
trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The same argument has been
made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth
in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B. A general problem of publication bias?
More generally, these findings should heighten our concern with publication bias in
the conflict literature. Our results run against a number of published results on
commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of select samples, misspecification,
and sensitivity to model assumptions, and, most importantly, alternative measures
of instability. Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the
majority of published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis
(2005) demonstrates that a published finding is less likely to be true when there is a
greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; there is greater

flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more teams are
involved in the chase of statistical significance. The cross-national study of conflict
is an extreme case of all these. Most worryingly, almost no paper looks at
alternative dependent variables or publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre and
Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on
timeinvariant regressors and not the time-varying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned
there is a file drawer problem (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision rule: scholars that discover robust results
that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about
problems with the data or empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces a

the consequences are dire:

a lower threshold of evidence for initially significant results than ambiguous ones.
robust result, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the aggregate,

2NC

2NC Ext- No War

Economic collapse doesnt cause war no causal connection
Thomas P.M. Barnett (senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a contributing editor/online
columnist for Esquire magazine) August 2009 The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was
ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing
conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were.
Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China
and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the
past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had
virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the
more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly
attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah
in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the
last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug
war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts
the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S.
presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two

Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar

picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential
state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side
acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global
economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two
ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our
involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up
to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts
in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up
with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we
pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do
something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond
advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass
violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like
Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in
all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no greatpower-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption
in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers
(despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international policing efforts
by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and *
No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant
its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western
breakaway regions.

hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include
China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global
defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the
stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation

on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the
world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's
major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to
both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from
immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but

there was no

great slide into "trade wars."

Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to

function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was
inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing
disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward,

At
the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to
provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism.

and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's

plenty of experts and pundits have attached great

significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the
like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally
integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging
interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in
primary reserve currency. Naturally,

which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this
global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.
Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the
fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.

A2 No Demand
***DO NOT USE *** Natural gas in electricity nowcompensating for oversupply of plants
Smith 2012 [Rebecca Smith Wall Street Journal 3-15-2012 Cheap Natural Gas
Unplugs U.S. Nuclear-Power Revival
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281490129153610.
html]
One reason utilities are finding it hard to resist cheap gas is that there is a surplus of
gas-fired generating capacity in many parts of the nation, the result of a building
boom that lasted from 1998 to 2005. Due in part to deregulation and inexpensive
capital, in 2001 alone utilities added 60,000 gas-fired megawatts, equivalent to
more than 120 big plants. But the 2002 collapse of Enron Corp., the big energy
marketer, led to a credit squeeze that eventually pushed some of the biggest and
most indebted power-plant builders into bankruptcy court, including NRG Energy;
Calpine CPN +1.30% Corp.; PG&E Corp.'s PCG -0.16% National Energy Group; and
Mirant Corp. "The beauty of inexpensive gas now is utilities are able to take
advantage of overbuilding 10 years ago," says Curt Launer, managing director of
equities research at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York. "Any utility that can
use gas is trying to use more of it."

Electricity sector favors natural gas now

Mcgehee 8-6 [Mike Mcgehee, FERC Trip Doggett, Ercot, SEC Wire 8-6-2012,
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION HOLDS A MEETING ON NATURAL GAS
AND ELECTRICITY MARKETS lexis]
Looking at the sectors that consume the natural gas in the past and into the future,
we see that the industrial sector is the largest consumer; however, gas consumption
by the industrial, residential, and commercial sectors have remained static since
2000. These sectors are not expected to increase their consumption greatly in
2020. Electric generation is the consuming sector that has seen and will continue to
see growth through 2020. Electric generation is now the second leading consumer -consuming sector in the central region. Natural gas currently fuels a large portion of
the electric generation portfolio in the central region, mostly in Texas, (inaudible)
expected increase of compliance with environmental regulations, reduce of the
number of power plants with high greenhouse gas emissions and more prohibitively
expensive regulatory compliance cost requirements and also help balance power
fluctuations from renewable power sources.

Natural gas transition now in electricity

StreetInsider 7-17 [StreetInsider , Natural Gas Fueled Cars: Game Changer or
Day Dreamer? (UNG) 7-17-2012
http://www.streetinsider.com/Commodities/Natural+Gas+Fueled+Cars
%3A+Game+Changer+or+Day+Dreamer%3F+(UNG)/7585751.html]
Thanks to advances in technology, the U.S. is now the world's largest producer of
natural gas. The supply is so great, natural gas prices collapsed to 10-year lows this

year. Power companies have been quick to make the swap from coal to natural gas
following the price declines, but the automotive industry is nowhere near making
natural gas a viable alternative to petroleum products. Currently, there are only
about 500 public CNG filling stations in the U.S. That is less than 0.03 percent of the
total 159k fueling stations in America.

A2 Supply is Unstable
MIT thinks we have plenty
MONIZ, JACOBY, and MEGGS 2011 [ERNEST J. MONIZ CHAIR Cecil and
Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, MIT Director, MIT
Energy Initiative (MITEI) HENRY D. JACOBY CO-CHAIR Professor of
Management, MIT ANTHONY J. M. MEGGS CO-CHAIR Visiting Engineer, MITEI,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Study on the Future of Natural Gas
06/09/11, http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf]
Globally, there are abundant supplies of natural gas, much of which can be
developed at relatively low cost. The current mean projection of remaining
recoverable resource is 16,200 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf), 150 times current annual
global gas consumption, with low and high projections of 12,400 Tcf and 20,800 Tcf,
respectively. Of the mean projection, approximately 9,000 Tcf could be
economically developed with a gas price at or below $4/Million British thermal units
(MMBtu) at the export point. Unconventional gas, and particularly shale gas, will
make an important contribution to future U.S. energy supply and carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) emission reduction efforts. Assessments of the recoverable volumes of
shale gas in the U.S. have increased dramatically over the last five years. The
current mean projection of the recoverable shale gas resource is approximately
650 Tcf, with low and high projections of 420 Tcf and 870 Tcf, respectively. Of the
mean projection, approximately 400 Tcf could be economically developed with a
gas price at or below $6/MMBtu at the well-head.

We have a ton, demand will rise preventing a bubble

Smith 2012 [Rebecca Smith Wall Street Journal 3-15-2012 Cheap Natural Gas
Unplugs U.S. Nuclear-Power Revival
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281490129153610.
html]
Natural-gas companies are working to assuage utilities' concerns. Steven Farris,
chief executive of Apache Corp., points to the current priceabout $2.30 per million
British thermal unitsas proof that gas is abundant. "Obviously, we've got more gas
than we used to, or we'd have $13 gas," he says. "We just have a tremendous
amount of gas." Mr. Farris doesn't claim natural gas can or should meet most of the
nation's power needs. But he says his industry could furnish enough to replace the
185 biggest coal-burning power plants. The gas industry's goal is to "grow demand
for their fuel as they grow production," says John Somerhalder, chief executive of
AGL Resources, a big natural-gas distribution utility based in Atlanta. There is no
better customer, he says, than the power industry. Enormous quantities of natural
gas have been discovered in the U.S., especially in underground shale formations,
where it is being extracted through hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." In 2010, there
were more than 487,000 wells producing natural gas in 30 states, led by Texas with
95,000 wells, according to the EIA, the statistics arm of the Department of Energy.
So-called shale-gas production now accounts for about one-third of U.S. natural-gas
supplies.

Even if the worst estimates yield enough to have low cost

natural gas
Levi 2012 [Michael Levi is the David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and
the environment and director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate
Change at the Council on Foreign Relations July 2012 Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists Splitting rock vs. splitting atoms: What shale gas means for nuclear
power Ebsco]
Even in the United States, though, not everyone is bullish about shale gas. Some
doubt the figures that have been bandied about regarding the size of US resources.
Others question the claimed costs of production. And many, fearing contamination of water supplies and
despoiling of local environments, oppose shale gas production outright. Any of these could, in principle, send
natural gas prices back up, making nuclear competitive. So could strong demand for shale gas from new
markets, like natural gas cars. Estimates of the size of US shale resources are extremely uncertain. In 2009,
the Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting stunned observers with the release of their estimate that
a whopping 262 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was trapped in US shale (2009). (Annual US consumption is
about one-tenth of that, and the shale resources came on top of large conventional ones that were already
known.) Two years after that, the Energy Departments Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated a
massive 827 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, only to drop it back to 482 trillion cubic feet in early 2012 (Urbina,
2012). Private analysts have produced even more varied guesses. Absent more drilling experience, particularly
away from the most attractive deposits, resolving outstanding disagreements will be tough. That is compounded
by uncertainty about how much gas a given well will ultimately recover. Shale gas is a young business, but
developers expect a well to produce for decades. Long-term production projections thus rely heavily on theory,
and there are intense debates over where that theory points. Some expect production to flatten out at low
levels but to then continue for many years; others expect it to decline steeply without end. It will likely be many
years before this battle is resolved decisively. In the meantime, uncertainty about ultimate well productivity is
tantamount to uncertainty about the cost of producing a given amount of fuel. That all leaves a big question:
How much do these differences matter? In 2011, facing questions over natural gas resources and production
costs, the EIA took a careful look at five cases (EIA, 2011a). Their best guess, based on moderate-sized

resources and moderate drilling costs, saw natural gas prices rise to about $6 for a thousand cubic feet by 2025
and to $7 by 2035. Bigger resources (boosted by 50 percent) meant 2025 prices near $5, and better
productivity pushed those down evenfurther, to barely more than $4. Of course, when EIA analysts slashed
estimated resources in half, projected prices rose, hitting $7 by 2025. The most extreme case, which featured not
only smaller resources but doubled drilling costs, saw prices eventually top $8. Because

of their
speculative nature and the lack of experience with shale gas, these sorts of
estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, most of the numbers
have something important in common: They look ugly for nuclear power. Even $7
natural gas, one of the worst-case outcomes, translates into new gas-fired power at
about 7 cents a kilowatt-hour. Nuclear would have a tough time beating that, at
least for the next decade or so, except with the most optimistic assumptions
possible about its cost.

A2 Infrastructure Kills Industry

They are building it now
Wisenberg Brin 2012 [Dinah Wisenberg Brin Special to CNBC.com 20 Jun
2012 Natural Gas Prices Are Down but Capital Spending Surges
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47279973/Natural_Gas_Prices_Are_Down_but_Capital_Spend
ing_Surges]
U.S. energy producers recent successes in extracting natural gas from shale may
have contributed to a price-dampening oversupply for now, but its also spurring
tens of billions of dollars in capital investments by a reinvigorated industry.
Investments in pipelines and other natural gas infrastructure are expected to enter
the trillions of dollars over the next two to three decades, with heavy investment
in the near term. The gas business in North America has suddenly gone through
a dramatic revolution, as new horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
technologies have allowed access to tremendous natural gas resources, notes
industry consultant James Jensen, president of Jensen Associates of Weston, Mass.
The industry needs new pipelines to accommodate the significant gas resources
being discovered in places where it previously wasnt found, he said, noting also
that "fracking" is leading producers to oil. Shale gas is also sparking capital
expenditures by chemical producers that use natural gas as fuel and feedstock, and
by other energy-intensive industries, and may prompt investment in natural gasfueled power generation as well. The shale discoveries could potentially shift the
United States to an export market, as well, as shale gas is expected to reduce
reliance on liquefied natural gas imports and pare U.S. electricity prices. The
United States has really changed in the past three or four years its energy profile,
and that is why were seeing this step up in infrastructure investment, says John
Parry, principal energy financial analyst at IHS Herold, an energy company and
transaction research arm of IHS Global Insight [IHS 116.16 -1.54 (-1.31%) ].

A2 New Regulations Kill Industry

OUTDATED CARD, Obama will loosen up to oil officials and
Republicans to get re-elected.
No regulations are coming- when they negotiate the natural
gas industry wins
Broder 2012 [John M. Broder May 4, 2012 New York Times New Proposal on
Fracking Gives Ground to Industry http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/newfracking-rule-is-issued-by-obama-administration.html]
WASHINGTON The Obama administration on Friday issued a proposed rule
governing hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands that will for the first
time require disclosure of the chemicals used in the process. But in a significant
concession to the oil industry, companies will have to reveal the composition of
fluids only after they have completed drilling a sharp change from the
governments original proposal, which would have required disclosure of the
chemicals 30 days before a well could be started. The pullback on the rule followed
a series of meetings at the White House after the original regulation was proposed
in February. Lobbyists representing oil industry trade associations and individual
major producers like ExxonMobil, XTO Energy, Apache, Samson Resources and
Anadarko Petroleum met with officials of the Office of Management and Budget, who
reworked the rule to address industry concerns about overlapping state regulations
and the cost of compliance. Production of domestic oil and natural gas has surged
in recent years as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have opened new
fields and allowed renewed production from formations that had seemed depleted.
President Obama has strongly endorsed the new production as a boon to the
economy and energy security. And the president, under intense criticism of his
energy policies from Republicans and oil industry officials as he faces a re-election
contest, has recently taken steps to ease government regulation of oil operations.

The industry always gets concessions- empirically proven on

flaring
Restuccia 12 [Andrew Restuccia 04/18/12 The Hill EPA finalizes first-ever air
pollution rules for natural-gas 'fracking' http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/222303-epa-finalizes-first-ever-air-pollution-rules-for-fracking]
The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled first-ever regulations Wednesday
aimed at reducing toxic air pollution from the natural-gas drilling practice known as
fracking. The regulations which would also target emissions from compressors,
oil storage tanks and other oil-and-gas sector equipment would cut 95 percent of
smog-forming and toxic emissions from wells developed with fracking, EPA said.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves high-pressure injections of sand, water
and chemicals that allow natural gas trapped in rock formations to flow. The final
regulations have been the subject of an aggressive public relations and lobbying
campaign in recent months, with industry groups arguing they will impose huge

burdens on companies, and green groups countering that they are essential to
protect public health. EPA altered the final regulations to offer a key concession to
the natural-gas industry, which had raised concerns about being able to comply
with the proposed regulations issued last year. Under the final rules, companies can
comply with the standards until 2015 using flaring, which reduces harmful
emissions by burning off the gases that would otherwise escape during natural-gas
drilling. After 2015, companies will need to install so-called green completions,
which are technologies that capture harmful emissions.

A2 Overlapping Regulations
Obamas got this one
Restuccia 12 [Andrew Restuccia 04/18/12 The Hill EPA finalizes first-ever air
pollution rules for natural-gas 'fracking' http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/222303-epa-finalizes-first-ever-air-pollution-rules-for-fracking]
In an effort to reassure industry groups that are concerned about overlapping
federal regulations, Obama announced the formation of a high-level task force last
week charged with coordinating oversight of fracking. The executive order forming
the task force sought to strike a balance between safety and expanded
development. [I]t is vital that we take full advantage of our natural gas resources,
while giving American families and communities confidence that natural and
cultural resources, air and water quality, and public health and safety will not be
compromised, the order said.

A2 Natural Gas Key

Natural gas not key to manufacturing affected sectors are
inconsequential
Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment
and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Energy and
U.S. Manufacturing: Five Things to Think About, Council on Foreign Relations, May
16, 2012, http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/05/16/energy-and-u-s-manufacturing-fivethings-to-think-about/, accessed 9-18-2012.
The boom in U.S. oil and gas production has sparked talk of a manufacturing
renaissance. I mentioned that somewhat skeptically last week in the context of a
much broader piece on the excitement surrounding surging U.S. oil and gas output. I
want to drill down on five important issues here. Some of this thinking is
preliminary, so as always, feedback is most welcome. Energy is of marginal
importance to most manufacturing. Most U.S. manufacturing is not energy
intensive. Joe Aldy and Billy Pizer reported in a 2009 paper that only one tenth of
U.S. manufacturing involved energy costs exceeding five percent of the total value
of shipments. These industries the most prominent of which are iron and steel,
primary aluminum, bulk cement, chemicals, paper, and glass are what we are
talking about when we discuss the potential for an energy-driven manufacturing
boom. The size of these sectors would need to grow enormously to have
revolutionary consequences for the fate of the U.S. manufacturing sector . Avoiding
substantial decline, though, could be more feasible.

Natural gas will not affect manufacturing industries multiples

reasons
Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment
and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Energy and
U.S. Manufacturing: Five Things to Think About, Council on Foreign Relations, May
16, 2012, http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/05/16/energy-and-u-s-manufacturing-fivethings-to-think-about/, accessed 9-18-2012.
Manufacturing growth tied to cheap natural gas is mostly a chemicals story. Take a
look at the sweep of major energy-intensive industries, and youll find that most are
still quite insensitive to energy prices. IHS-CERA, which is not shy about extolling
the benefits of the shale gale (a term it coined), surveyed these areas in an ANGAfunded study on shale jobs late last year and came to some striking conclusions.
Aluminum: Lower U.S. natural gas prices could potentially slow or even halt the
slow decay in the aluminum industry. However, it is unlikely that they would change
the economics of primary aluminum production enough, even in the long-term, to
redirect investment here. Steel: Cheaper electricity [due to low gas prices] will
have only a small positive effect on this industry in terms of profitability and
competitiveness. Cement: The electricity fraction of costs for cement production
is too small to generate a significant impact on competitiveness, and the cost
savings are not expected to cause production expansion and capacity investment.
There were, however, two industries that stood out. The (much) smaller one was

iron ore processed from taconite in the Great Lakes region. Indeed several new
projects, each of which would ultimately employ a couple hundred people, appear to
be underway. The greatest potential, however, appears to lie in petrochemicals. The
basic story is simple: natural gas is partly ethane and propane, feedstocks that
makes up the bulk of ethylene and propylene producers costs. Greater natural gas
production boosts ethane and propane supplies. So do lower natural gas prices,
which can make it more profitable to strip out these liquids (not a cheap endeavor)
rather than keep it in the gas to boost sales. (Ethane and propane increase the Btu
content of natural gas, and thus the amount one can make by selling it.) On the flip
side, the main competition for ethane and propane as feedstocks is naphtha, a
product of petroleum refining. High oil prices make ethane in particular a much
better bet than naptha so long as oil and gas prices continue to diverge. (High oil
prices tend to pull propane prices up, making propane unattractive as an ethylene
feedstock.) This explains why we are hearing so much talk of resurgent investment
in petrochemicals. A sense of scale, though, is essential. U.S. ethylene production
capacity was about 29 million tons annually as of 2009. At a price of $1,300 a ton,
that was worth about 40 billion dollars. Even if the United States were to double its
ethylene production an outcome, I hasten to mention, that no one is even
remotely talking about the revenues (not profits) would be another 40 billion.*
Thats far from trivial, but it isnt earth-shattering either.

A2 Creates Jobs
Multiplier effect cannot be utilized with federal expenditure
Jefferey Folks, Editor for American Thinker. February 10, 2010. Multiplier effect
defect http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/multiplier_effect_defect.html
Waste, graft, and inefficiency are bad enough, but as Milton Friedman suggested
long ago, the greatest loss of wealth resulting from faith in the multiplier effect
comes from the reduction of the private-sector capital base, and from the "rational
expectations" of the public, who eventually are led to curtail spending and savings
in the face of rising government deficits. Lost investment in the private sector,
where the multiplier effect actually does operate, will necessarily reduce future GDP
growth. Unlike government, which scatters its seeds in fields controlled by lobbyists
and contributors, the private sector tends to plant in fertile fields, where it can
expect to earn a return on investment. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of
Economic Advisers, seems at least half-sensible on the issue of multipliers. She
recognizes that job-creation depends on growth of investment in the private sector.
No amount of stimulus spending or hiring credits will take the place of growth in the
private sector, and the best way to spur such growth is through permanent tax cuts
and with stable, predictable tax and regulation policies . Unfortunately, Romer is the
odd woman out in this administration.

Stimulus spending cant create multiplier effect

Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford
University's Hoover Institution. Mr. Redlick is a recent Harvard graduate. October 1,
2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.
html
Our research also shows that greater weakness in the economy raises the estimated
multiplier: It increases by around 0.1 for each two percentage points by which the
unemployment rate exceeds its long-run median of 5.6%. Thus the estimated
multiplier reaches 1.0 when the unemployment rate gets to about 12% . The bottom
line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that
spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will
likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending . Defensespending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment
rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical
support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

The multiplier effect is overblown research proves

Veronique de Rugy, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at
George Mason, The Myth of the Multiplier, Reason, November 2009,
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/the-myth-of-the-multiplier/1, accessed 6-192012.
Under this logic, one possible remedy is for public spending to take the place of
private spending. As government increases its spending, the money creates new

employment. That, in turn, spurs those new workers to consume more and prompts
businesses to buy more machines and equipment to meet the government-induced
demand. Economists call this increase in aggregate income the multiplier effect.
One dollar of government spending, the theory goes, ends up creating more than a
dollar of new income. Its a rare free lunch. As appealing as the Keynesian story
sounds, many economists have long doubted it. In 1991, looking across 100
countries, Robert Barro of Harvard presented historical evidence that high
government spending actually hurts economies in the long run by crowding out
private spending and shifting resources to the uses preferred by politicians rather
than consumers. For a dollar of government spending, we end up seeing less than a
dollar of growth. Can long-term poison be short-term medicine? Even in the short
run, if theres a big decline in the demand for workers, why should that alone cause
mass unemployment? If all those workers really want to work, why wont wages just
fall until all the workers have jobs? Thats how markets end a glut, whether its a
glut of employees or a glut of blue jeans: with lower prices. If recessions really are
caused by a fall in demand (and nothing else), why dont wages fall enough to keep
people from losing their jobs? Its because wages are sticky, Keynesians argue.
Wages and salaries dont change on a daily basis the way stock prices and gas
prices do, so if a company hits a sales slump, salespeople might earn fewer
commissions, but the vast majority of workers dont get a pay cut. Theres
something about the market for workers that keeps businesses from cutting wages
in a slump. As long as wages are sticky, in the wake of a nationwide collapse in
sales, entrepreneurs will start firing people. If a decline in demand means mass
firing, a rise in demand can mean mass hiring. Even if government spending is
inefficient, pork-laden, and financed by future tax increases, the theory goes, it can
still create some real jobs, some real output, in both the public and private sectors.
So what do the data say? There arent many studies of the issue. But two stand out:
Robert Barros work and research by Valerie Ramey, an economist at the University
of CaliforniaSan Diego, on how military spending influences GDP. Both studies
found that government spending crowds out the private sector, at least a little. And
both found multipliers close to one: Barros estimate is 0.8, while Rameys estimate
is 1.2. This means that every dollar of government spending produces either less
than a dollar of economic growth or just a little over a dollar. Thats quite different
from the administrations favored multiplier of four. Whats more, Ramey also found
evidence that consumer and business spending actually decline after an increase in
government purchases. Why this crowding out of private spending? Government
spending comes from three sources: debt, new money, or taxes . In other words, the
government cant inject money into the economy without first taking money out of
the economy.

A2 Manufacturing Key
Manufacturing is not key to the economy due to changes in the
industry unions are more important
Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at UC
Berkeley, Unions, not manufacturing, key to economic revival, San Francisco Gate, February 26, 2012,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/INC81NADIH.DTL, accessed 6-16-2012.
Meanwhile, American consumers' pent-up demand for appliances, cars and trucks has created a small boomlet in
American manufacturing - setting off a wave of hope and nostalgic patriotism perfectly captured in Clint Eastwood's

But American manufacturing won't be coming back.

Although 404,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since January 2010, that
still leaves 5.5 million fewer factory jobs today than in July 2000. The long-term
trend is fewer and fewer factory jobs. After World War II, 1 in 3 Americans was
employed in manufacturing; today it's 1 in 8. Even if we didn't have to compete with
lower-wage workers overseas, we'd still have fewer factory jobs because the old
assembly line has been replaced by numerically controlled machine tools and
robotics. Manufacturing is going high-tech, and as a result its productivity has
skyrocketed - meaning fewer jobs. Bringing back American manufacturing isn't the
real challenge, anyway. It's creating good jobs for the majority of Americans who
lack four-year college degrees. Manufacturing used to supply lots of these kinds of
jobs, but that was because factory workers were represented by unions powerful
enough to get high wages. That's no longer the case . Even the once-mighty United
Auto Workers has been forced to accept pay packages for new hires at the Big Three
of only $14 an hour - half what new hires got a decade ago, and about the same as
most of America's service-sector workers. GM just announced record profit, but its
new workers won't be getting much of a share. If there's a single reason the median
wage has dropped dramatically for non-college workers over the past 3 1/2
decades, it's the decline of unions. In the 1950s, more than a third of American
workers were represented by a union. Now, fewer than 7 percent of private-sector
workers have a union behind them.
Super Bowl "Halftime in America" spot.

Reducing the deficit is considerably more important than

boosting manufacturing
Gary S. Becker, University Professor Department of Economics and Sociology
Professor Graduate School of Business The University of Chicago, Concern About
The Decline in Manufacturing in the United States?, Becker-Posner Blog, April 22,
2012, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/04/concern-about-the-decline-inmanufacturing-in-the-united-states-becker.html, accessed 6-16-2012.
President Obama, in his State of the Union address, advocated special tax breaks
and support for the manufacturing sector. I do not see any more convincing case for
subsidies to manufacturing than there was for the special treatment of agriculture
during the long decline in farm employment. Most of the arguments made in
support of privileges for manufacturing could be made for services and other
sectors of the economy. For example, although certain manufacturing industries
have had high rates of productivity advance, so too has mining, such as through the
development of fracking techniques. The most important technological advance of

the past several decades has been the computer and the Interne t, for these gave
birth to email, word processing, apps, online sales, and social networks like
Facebook and Twitter. Instead of singling out manufacturing for special privileges,
the government should get behind certain general policies . High on the list would be
raising the rate of growth of the American economy, for this will tend to create jobs
in most sectors of the economy. More government support may be justified for basic
research in science and other areas that would also benefit all sectors , not just
manufacturing. Local and state governments, along perhaps with the federal
governments, could try to reduce the dismally high dropout rates from American
high schools. Dropouts have trouble finding good jobs even in the best of times, and
they suffer the most during recessions. Many other steps can be taken to help the
American economy, especially by limiting the growth of entitlements and the
federal budget. None of the steps to improve the economy involve favoring
manufacturing employment and the manufacturing sector . The call by
many for special treatment of manufacturing jobs is basically misguided.

The U.S. is already the worlds largest manufacturer and

government action on manufacturing leads to fewer jobs
Richard A. Posner, Judge, United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Senior
Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School, Decline of U.S. Manufacturing
Posner, Becker-Posner Blog, April 22, 2012, http://www.becker-posnerblog.com/2012/04/decline-of-us-manufacturingposner.html, accessed 6-16-2012.
There is a general anxiety about becoming dependent on foreign nations for
products that are vital to our nation. That is a legitimate concern when one is
talking about products that are essential for national security or economic welfare,
such as military aircraft; and obviously our military production is heavily and
justifiably paid for largely by the government, although some is paid for by foreign
buyers. The foreign products that might be thought essential to our security and
welfare are not manufactured goods at all, but commodities such as oil and rare
earth metals. The United States is still the worlds largest manufacturing country ,
accounting for a fifth of total world industrial output. Becker points to the analogy of
agriculture. Employment in agriculture has plummeted, leading to anxieties spurred
by agricultural companies about the decline of the family farm and the loss of the
imagined virtues of the independent farmer, to combat which agriculture continues
to be heavily subsidized. The subsidies are widely recognized to be a pure social
waste, and the same would be true of subsidizing manufacturing. Like
manufacturing, American agriculture is thriving with its historically small labor force .
The decline in agricultural employment is a product of technological advance, and
likewise the decline in manufacturing employment. Subsidizing manufacturing will
no more increase employment in manufacturing than subsidizing agriculture has
prevented the precipitous decline of agricultural employment, for a manufacturing
subsidy will be used to speed the automation of manufacturing tasks and so
accelerate the decline of manufacturing employment--unless the subsidy is
conditioned on increased employment, which would would mean diverting workers

from more to less productive work. We would not be better off if 40 percent of the
labor force were in farming rather than 2.5 percent, or if 28 percent of the labor
force were in manufacturing rather than 9 percent. Some concern has been
expressed that we need to boost manufacturing in order to reduce our trade
imbalance, because many manufactured goods are exported. But a recent article in
the New York Times (April 10) points out that the United States is the worlds largest
exporter of servicesand would be larger still if we took steps, such as loosening
visa restrictions that impede international provisions of services and making the
same efforts to pry open foreign markets to American services as we do to pry open
foreign markets to American goods. The politicians know all these things. The push
to promote manufacturing is political in origin and may (one hopes will) be
abandoned after the election. Its political appeal is related partly to the fact that
unions still have a foothold in manufacturing, and partly to the fact that Americas
prowess in manufacturing (think of the vast output of munitions in World War II) is
associated in the public mind with the epoch of greatest American world power. I
have no objection to efforts to negotiate with foreign countries trade agreements
that facilitate U.S. exports (they also of course facilitate importsand thats fine
too). Such efforts are the centerpiece of the Administrations program of stimulating
employment in manufacturing. But the efforts should be extended to services. I can
think of no rational basis for putting manufacturing ahead of services.

Warming Answers

1NC Frontline
The plan forces natural gas to remain artificially low which kills
the renewable energy industry
Richard Harris, Could Cheap Gas Slow Growth Of Renewable Energy?, NPR,
February 2, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146297284/could-cheap-gasslow-growth-of-renewable-energy, accessed 7-5-2012.
***Quotes Henry Jacoby who is an economist at the Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy Research at MIT, a leader of MIT research and
analysis of national climate policies and the structure of the international
climate regime, has been director of the Harvard Environmental Systems
Program, director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy
Research, associate director of the MIT Energy Laboratory, and chair of
the MIT Faculty.***
From an environmental perspective, natural gas could help transition our economy
from fossil fuels to clean energy. It's often portrayed as a bridge fuel to help us
through the transition, because it's so much cleaner than coal and it's abundant.
But Jacoby says that bridge could be in trouble if cheap gas kills the incentive to
develop renewable industry. "You'd better be thinking about a landing of the bridge
at the other end. If there's no landing at the other end, it's just a bridge to
nowhere," he says. In the short run, at least, the wind industry isn't too worried
about this. Denise Bode, who heads the American Wind Energy Association, says
low gas prices don't undercut current prices for wind, because those are mostly
fixed by 20-year contracts, not market prices. And even if wind is a bit more
expensive than natural gas, she says utilities still want it in their mix. Windmills
aren't subject to changing fuel prices, so the cost of production is quite predictable.
That's not true for natural gas there's no guarantee that today's cheap prices will
stay as low as some predict. "It's very difficult to really know how certain that is, so
you always want to balance that with something that is certain," Bode says.

CO2 doesnt cause warming

Jaworowski 2010 [Zbigniew, Ph. D., M.D., D.Sc., has researched the
atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for
many years, and is the author of numerous publications on climate change. He
serves as the Polish representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) January 15, Global Warming: A Lie
Aimed At Destroying Civilization EIR Science and Technology
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf]
As you can see, there is no connection between CO2 , which has been under such
fierce attack, and climate change. Indeed, more than 500 million years ago,
according to the geological record, CO2 was present at 23 times the levels we

now have in the atmosphere, and yet, half a billion years ago, the land was
covered by glaciers. Climate change depends on many factors, and now we are
fighting against only one factor, CO2 , which happens to be negligible.

No catastrophic warming and its not human caused- past

temperatures were hotter and we didnt cause them nor die
from them
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Evidence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) approximately 1,000 years ago, when
there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently,
would show there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about recent
temperatures. Such evidence is now overwhelming. New evidence not
reported in NIPCC-1 finds the Medieval Warm Period occurred in North America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Antarctica, and the Northern Hemisphere.
Despite this evidence, Mann et al. (2009) continue to understate the true level of
warming during the MWP by cherry-picking proxy and instrumental records.
Research from locations around the world reveals a significant period of elevated
air temperatures that immediately preceded the Little Ice Age, during a time that
has come to be known as the Little Medieval Warm Period. Recent
reconstructions of climate history find the human influence does not stand out
relative to other, natural causes of climate change. While global warming theory
and models predict polar areas would warm most rapidly, the warming of
Greenland was 33 percent greater in magnitude in 19191932 than it was in 1994
2007, and Antarctica cooled during the second half of the twentieth century.
Perlwitz et al. (2009) reported a decade-long decline (19982007) in globally
averaged temperatures from the record heat of 1998 and noted U.S.
temperatures in 2008 not only declined from near-record warmth of prior years,
but were in fact colder than the official 30-year reference climatology and
further were the coldest since at least 1996. New research disputes IPCCs
claim that it has ferreted out all significant influences of the worlds many and
diverse urban heat islands from the temperature databases they use to portray
the supposedly unprecedented warming of the past few decades.

2NC

A2 No Tradeoff
Pushing for natural gas will lock us into natural gas and move
us away from renewable energies
Beth Gardner, Is Natural Gas Good, or Just Less Bad?, New York Times,
February 22, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/business/energyenvironment/21iht-renogas21.html, accessed 7-5-2012.
But opponents see the push for natural gas as a distraction from more pressing
priorities, like improving efficiency and generating renewable power. We really
have to be quite careful about the language we use to frame things, said Kevin
Anderson, a professor at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the
University of Manchester in England. If we call things green, we start to feel
positive about it. Natural gas, he said, is not a positive thing, its just less
negative. In fact, he called it a very bad fuel, with very high emissions indeed.
Theyre not as high as some other fossil fuels, but given where we need to be, to
compare it with the worst thats out there is very dangerous, he added. Others are
less critical. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an influential environmental
group based in New York, wants to see U.S. coal plants converted to natural gas,
said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney with the council. Reducing energy demand and
promoting renewables come first, she said, but we do see that as we get there,
there is inevitably going to be a role for natural gas to play. In addition to the
carbon dioxide savings, natural gas also emits far lower levels of pollutants like
nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury and particulate matter. Eventually, Ms. Sinding
said, natural gas plants could be paired with solar and wind farms, which generate
intermittent supply and need backup. Still, even if gas burns more cleanly than coal
and oil, its production is often so dirty that it undermines the environmental gains,
she said. U.S. and state regulators must tighten rules that have failed to reduce the
serious problem of methane leaks and protect the quality of air and drinking water,
Ms. Sinding said. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, which, if leaked
unburned, is a powerful greenhouse gas. Also, poorly built gas wells can
contaminate nearby aquifers. In theory it can be reasonable, but were just falling
far short of what we need to be doing for it to realize its promise, she said. Much of
the enthusiasm in the United States and Europe for natural gas comes from its
relative abundance, and its location in places friendly to the West. The United States
in particular has plentiful supplies, now that extraction from shale rock has boomed
into a big industry. Gas is much better distributed around the world than oil, said
Michael Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and
Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. We keep finding it. Many
environmentalists are not convinced, noting that a growing number of new finds are
in hard-to-reach areas or require unconventional forms of extraction, making
exploitation riskier, more expensive and more energy-intensive. Still, Mr. Webber
said, If we can really produce gas in a safe, clean way and its as abundant as
people say, it doesnt take us all the way to a zero-carbon future, but its clearly a
big step in the right direction. The advantages of gas, which include the low capital

cost and short turnaround time for building new plants, make it essential for
reducing carbon emissions quickly, said Beate Raabe, director of European Union
affairs at the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, a trade group
based in Brussels. In the longer term, she said, carbon-capture technology could
make gas plants part of a green future. Mr. Obama appeared to share such
optimism when he mentioned natural gas in his State of the Union speech last
month, surprising environmentalists by listing it along with solar, wind, nuclear and
so-called clean coal power as key parts of a national clean-energy strategy. But
some remain skeptical of the idea that natural gas can serve as a bridge to a
cleaner renewable energy future. How long and how wide is this bridge? asked Ms.
Sinding, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The more we put into
natural gas, the greater the concern that we lock ourselves into burning
natural gas and not substituting for it.

Natural gas displaces renewable energies

Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time
magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010, as acting assistant secretary
of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1
billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a
Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Natural
Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent a Serious Price for Global Warming Pollution,
Think Progress, January 24, 2012,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/24/407765/natural-gas-is-a-bridge-tonowhere-price-for-global-warming-pollution/, accessed 8-12-2012.
Building lots of new gas plants doesnt make much sense since we need to sharply
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next few decades if were to have any
chance to avoid catastrophic global warming. We dont want new gas plants to
displace new renewables, like solar and wind, which are going to be the some of the
biggest, sustainable job creating industries of the century . Late last year, some of
the leading (center-right) economists in the country Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert
Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus concluded in a top economic journal that the
total damages from natural gas generation exceed its value -added at a low-ball
carbon price of $27 per ton! At a price of $65 a ton of carbon, the total damages
from natural gas are more than double its value -added! For the record, stabilizing at
550 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which would likely still be catastrophic
for humanity, would require a price of $330 a metric ton of carbon in 2030, the
International Energy Agency (IEA) noted back in 2008. The fact that natural gas is a
bridge fuel to nowhere was in fact, first demonstrated by the IEA in its big June 2011
report on gas see IEAs Golden Age of Gas Scenario Leads to More Than 6F
Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. That study which had both coal and
oil consumption peaking in 2020 made abundantly clear that if we want to avoid
catastrophic warming, we need to start getting off of all fossil fuels.

Lowering natural gas prices anymore will ruin the coming

stability in the market
Solar Town, The Economics of Solar Energy: Is Fracking Killing Renewable
Energy?, January 5, 2012, http://www.solartown.com/community/news/view/theeconomics-of-solar-energy-is-fracking-killing-renewable-energy/, accessed 8-122012.
That big earthquake you just felt may be a bigger threat to solar energy than a
cloudy day. Economics more than anything else drive the solar energy market and
when oil and gas go up, the demand for renewable energy also go up. When the
price for oil and gas go down, the demand for renewable energy also goes down . In
an effort to produce low cost natural gas, the demand for renewable energy,
including solar energy, the utilities are reducing the demand for solar panels on
your homes. As this new report from NPR suggests, the cost of natural gas has
dropped considerably. The primary culprit is that earthquake you may have felt in
Texas or Ohio. As the NPR reports suggests, "The reason natural gas prices have

fallen is because production is way up, thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, as

it's called, is a controversial drilling technology that some say harms the
environment. But the process has also made it possible to extract oil and gas once
thought to be trapped in rock too deep underground for drillers to reach." Low utility
rates sound good to consumers but in the quest to preserve low utility rates, the
thirst for renewable energy is being squelched. As NPR reports, "This has allowed
utilities that burn natural gas to produce electricity to hold the line on rates. For
most of us, that's a good thing, but for those who've installed solar panels, it makes
that investment less of a bargain." This year promises to be another year of twists
and turns for the solar energy industry. The major industry group just announced
that it is merging with another solar energy group. As reported earlier this week in
the San Francisco Chronicle, "The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the
national trade association for the solar energy industry, announced today that it has
officially merged with the Solar Alliance, an advocacy organization committed to
establishing solar policies at the state level. Effective immediately, the Solar
Alliance will operate under the SEIA brand in an effort to present a unified solar
industry voice in all advocacy efforts at the state level." Solar Novus Today reports
that there will be more turmoil in the industry , but "stability is on the horizon,
especially as the world's energy consumers realize that solar costs are in line with
those of fossil fuels, that it is affordable and can be easily financed, and that it is an
abundant and reliable source of energy."

Natural gas shifts the energy debate away from climate and
towards economics ruins chance for renewables
Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress,
which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and
Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010, as acting assistant
secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he
oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon
technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics
from MIT, Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent a Serious Price for Global
Warming Pollution, Think Progress, January 24, 2012,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/24/407765/natural-gas-is-a-bridge-tonowhere-price-for-global-warming-pollution/, accessed 8-12-2012.
Natural gas might have been a bridge to a low-carbon future 30 years ago when
the term was first introduced, but now its primary value would be to reduce the cost
of meeting a near-term CO2 target in the U.S. in the context of a rising CO2 price. A
key finding of the NCAR study is: The most important result, however, in accord with
the above authors, is that, unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below
2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude
of future climate change. The question of what the total leakage rate is remains
hotly contested, but I know of no analysis that finds a rate below 2% including one
by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the DOEs premier fossil fuel lab.
BOTTOM LINE: If you want to have a serious chance at averting catastrophic global

warming, then we need to start phasing out all fossil fuels as soon as possible .
Natural gas isnt a bridge fuel from a climate perspective. Carbon-free power is the
bridge fuel until we can figure out how to go carbon negative on a large scale in the
second half of the century.

A2 Fossil Fuels > Renewables

Renewable energies are more effective in solving global
warming the AFF still emits CO2 through extraction and
processing
NREL, Strengthening U.S. Leadership of International Clean Energy Cooperation,
December 2008, http://www.nrel.gov/international/pdfs/44261.pdf, accessed 6-202012.
Greenhouse Gas Impacts The primary environmental benefit of the U.S.-led global
clean energy market transformation will be reduced greenhouse gas emissions of
50-80% by 2050, which scientists think will prevent catastrophic climate change
impactsa large benefit to the U.S. and the global community. Clean energy
technologies will provide more than half of the reductions needed to achieve that
goal (Figure 3).4 Other Environmental Benefits Significant local air quality and other
environmental benefits will accompany the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Reduced air emissions translate to improved health, lower health care costs,
improved visibility, and reduced impacts on natural ecosystems . Increased use of
clean energy also will reduce impacts from fossil fuel extraction and
processing. Increased access to clean energy in the poorest regions of the world
will reduce the use of firewood, enabling cleaner indoor air quality and contributing
to local sustainable development.

A2 Not Enough Power

Renewables can provide base-load power multiple warrants
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies
at University of New South Wales., previously, as a Principal Research Scientist in
CSIRO, he led a research group on the integration of wind power into electricity
grids, author and co-author of several national energy scenario studies, The Base
Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers,
Energy Science Coalition, March 2010,
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf, accessed 8-17-2012.
Opponents of renewable energy, from the coal and nuclear industries and from
NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) groups, are disseminating the Base-Load Fallacy, that
is, the fallacy that renewable energy cannot provide base-load (24-hour) power to
substitute for coal-fired electricity. In Australia, even Government Ministers and
some journalists are propagating this conventional wisdom, although it is false.
This fallacy is the principal weapon of renewable energy deniers. Other fallacies are
discussed briefly in the appendix. The political implications are that, if these
fallacies become widely believed, renewable energy would always have to remain a
niche market, rather than achieve its true potential of becoming a set of
mainstream energy supply technologies with the capacity to supply all of Australias
and indeed the worlds electricity. The refutation of the fallacy has the following key
logical steps: With or without renewable energy, there is no such thing as a
perfectly reliable power station or electricity generating system. Both coal and
nuclear power are only partially reliable. Electricity grids are already designed to
handle variability in both demand and supply . To do this, they have different types
of power station (base-load, intermediate-load and peak-load) and reserve power
stations. Wind power and solar power without storage provide additional sources
of variability to be integrated into a system that already has to balance a variable
conventional supply against a variable demand. The variability of small amounts
of wind and solar power in a grid is indistinguishable from variations in demand.
Therefore, existing peak-load plant and reserve plant can handle small amounts of
wind and solar power at negligible extra cost. Some renewable electricity sources
(e.g. bioenergy, solar thermal electricity with thermal storage and geothermal) have
similar patterns of variability to coal-fired power stations and so they can be
operated as base-load. They can be integrated without any additional back-up, as
can efficient energy use. Other renewable electricity sources (e.g. wind, solar
without storage, and run-of-river hydro) have different kinds of variability from coalfired power stations and so have to be considered separately. Single wind turbines
cut-in and cut-out suddenly in low wind speeds and so can be described as
intermittent. But, for large amounts of wind power connected to the grid from
several wind farms that are geographically dispersed in different wind regimes, total
wind power generally varies smoothly and therefore cannot be described accurately
as intermittent. Like coal and 3 nuclear power, wind power is a partially reliable
source of power (Sinden 2007). However, its statistics are different from those of
coal and nuclear power. As the penetration into the grid of wind energy increases
substantially, so do the additional costs of reserve plant and fuel used for balancing

wind power variations. However, when wind power supplies up to 20% of electricity
generation, these additional costs are relatively small.

A variety of renewables are capable of providing base-load

Dr Mark Diesendorf is Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies
at University of New South Wales., previously, as a Principal Research Scientist in
CSIRO, he led a research group on the integration of wind power into electricity
grids, author and co-author of several national energy scenario studies, The Base
Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers,
Energy Science Coalition, March 2010,
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf, accessed 8-17-2012.
Renewable energy can provide several different clean, safe, base-load technologies
to substitute for base-load coal: bioenergy, based for example on the direct
combustion of crop and plantation forestry residues, or their gasification followed by
combustion of the gas; geothermal power a new type of geothermal power
(called hot rock, enhanced or engineered geothermal) is being developed in
Australia, the USA and Europe; solar thermal electricity, with overnight thermal
storage in molten salt, water, graphite or a thermochemical store such as ammonia;
hydro-electricity in regions with very large storages (eg, Sweden, Iceland,
Tasmania); large-scale, distributed wind power, with a small amount of occasional
back-up from peakload plant. It is obvious that the first four of these types of
renewable power station are indeed base-load. Efficient energy use and solar hot
water, the natural companions of renewable electricity, can also substitute directly
for base-load coal. However, the inclusion of large-scale wind power in the above list
may be a surprise to some people, because wind power is often described as an
intermittent source, one that switches on and off frequently. Before discussing the
variability of wind power, we introduce the concept of optimal mix.

A2 CO2 Causes- History

CO2 doesnt cause warming
Jaworowski 2010 [Zbigniew, Ph. D., M.D., D.Sc., has researched the
atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for
many years, and is the author of numerous publications on climate change. He
serves as the Polish representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) January 15, Global Warming: A Lie
Aimed At Destroying Civilization EIR Science and Technology
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf]
As you can see, there is no connection between CO2 , which has been under such
fierce attack, and climate change. Indeed, more than 500 million years ago,
according to the geological record, CO2 was present at 23 times the levels we
now have in the atmosphere, and yet, half a billion years ago, the land was
covered by glaciers. Climate change depends on many factors, and now we are
fighting against only one factor, CO2 , which happens to be negligible.

CO2 doesnt cause warming- its colder now with more of it

Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
But could the higher temperatures of the past four interglacials have been caused
by higher CO2 concentrations due to some non-human influence? Absolutely not, for
atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above
approximately 290 ppm, whereas the air's CO2 concentration today stands at nearly
390 ppm. Combining these two observations, we have a situation where, compared
with the mean conditions of the preceding four interglacials, there is currently 100
ppm more CO2 in the air than there was then, and it is currently more than 2C
colder than it was then, which adds up to one huge discrepancy for the world's
climate alarmists and their claim that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to
high temperatures. The situation is unprecedented, all right, but not in the way the
public is being led to believe.

A2 CO2 Causes - Arctic Records

CO2 doesnt cause warming- arctic records prove
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Concentrating wholly on directly-measured temperatures, as opposed to the reconstructed
temperatures derived by the proxy approach of Overpeck et al. (1997), Polyakov et al. (2003) derived a
surface air temperature history that stretched from 1875 to 2000 based on data obtained at 75
land stations and a number of drifting buoys located poleward of 62N latitude. This effort allowed the team of eight U.S. and

from 1875 to about 1917, the surface air temperature of the

huge northern region rose hardly at all ; but then it took off like a rocket, climbing
1.7C in just 20 years to reach a peak in 1937 that has yet to be eclipsed . During
this 20-year period of rapidly rising air temperature, the atmosphere's CO2
concentration rose by a mere 8 ppm. But then, over the next six decades, when the
air's CO2 content rose by approximately 55 ppm, or nearly seven times more than it did throughout the
20-year period of dramatic warming that preceded it, the surface air temperature of the region poleward of
62N experienced no net warming and, in fact, may have actually cooled a bit. In light of these
results, it is difficult to claim much about the strength of the warming power of the
approximate 75-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that occurred
from 1875 to 2000, other than to say it was miniscule compared to whatever other
forcing factor, or combination of forcing factors, was concurrently having its way with the climate
of the Arctic. One cannot, for example, claim that any of the 1917 to 1937 warming
was due to the 8-ppm increase in CO2 that accompanied it, even if augmented by
the 12-ppm increase that occurred between 1875 and 1917; for the subsequent and
much larger 55-ppm increase in CO2 led to no net warming over the remainder of
the record, which suggests that just a partial relaxation of the forces that totally
overwhelmed the warming influence of the CO2 increase experienced between
1937 and 2000 would have been sufficient to account for the temperature increase
that occurred between 1917 and 1937. And understood in this light, the air's CO2
content does not even begin to enter the picture. But what about earth's other polar region:
the Antarctic? Here, too, one can conclude nothing about the influence of
atmospheric CO2 on surface air temperature. Why? Because for the continent as a whole
(excepting the Antarctic Peninsula), there had been a net cooling over the pre-1990 period,
stretching back to at least 1966 (Comiso, 2000; Doran et al., 2002; Thompson and Solomon, 2002). And when the realworld air temperature declines when the theoretical climate forcing factor is rising,
one cannot even conclude that the forcing has any positive effect at all, much less
determine its magnitude. Hence, there is absolutely no substance to the claim that earth's polar
regions are providing evidence for an impending CO2-induced warming of any
magnitude anywhere.
Russian scientists to determine that

A2 CO2 Causes - Alt Causes

CO2 doesnt cause warming- multiple factors offset the
greenhouse effect
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
All else being equal, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 would increase global
temperatures through its thermal radiative properties. But CO2 promotes plant
growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the worlds oceans, and
this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earths climate in
several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating or cooling
effects of CO2s thermal radiative forcing. The natural environment is a major
source of atmospheric aerosols, the output of which varies with temperature and
CO2 concentrations. Aerosols serve as condensation nuclei for clouds , and clouds
affect Earths energy budget through their ability to reflect and scatter light and
their propensity to absorb and radiate thermal radiation . The cooling effect of
increased emissions of aerosols from plants and algae is comparable to the
warming effect projected to result from increases in greenhouse gases.
Similarly, warming-induced increases in the emission of dimethyl sulfide (DMS)
from the worlds oceans would offset much or all of the effects of anthropogenic
warming.

A2 Runaway Warming- Arctic Data

Arctic data supports the claim that warming will not be
runaway
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
With respect to the recent rate at which the earth has warmed, we examine the
results of a number of studies that have investigated recent temperature changes in
the Arctic, which Meadows (2001) described as "the place to watch for global
warming, the sensitive point, the canary in the coal mine." Here, in comparing the
vast array of prior Holocene climate changes with what climate alarmists claim to
be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past several
decades, White et al. (2010) recently determined that "the human influence on rate
and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of
climate change." Other scientists preceded White et al. with similar conclusions.
Chylek et al. (2006) studied two century-long temperature records from southern
coastal Greenland -- Godthab Nuuk on the west and Ammassalik on the east -- both
of which are close to 64N latitude, concentrating on the period 1915-2005. And in
doing so, as they describe it, they determined that "two periods of intense warming
(1995-2005 and 1920-1930) are clearly visible in the Godthab Nuuk and
Ammassalik temperature records." However, they state that "the average rate of
warming was considerably higher within the 1920-1930 decade than within the
1995-2005 decade." In fact, they report that the earlier warming rate was 50%
greater than the most recent one. And in discussing this fact, they say that "an
important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature
increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced
global warming?" In providing their own answer, they noted that "the Greenland
warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for [a] period of warming
to arise," and that "the observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be
within [the] natural variability of Greenland climate." A similar study was conducted
two years later by Mernild et al. (2008), who described "the climate and observed
climatic variations and trends in the Mittivakkat Glacier catchment in Low Arctic
East Greenland from 1993 to 2005 ... based on the period of detailed observations
(1993-2005) and supported by synoptic meteorological data from the nearby town
of Tasiilaq (Ammassalik) from 1898 to 2004." This work revealed that "the
Mittivakkat Glacier net mass balance has been almost continuously negative,
corresponding to an average loss of glacier volume of 0.4% per year." And during
the past century of general mass loss, they found that "periods of warming were
observed from 1918 (the end of the Little Ice Age) to 1935 of 0.12C per year and
1978 to 2004 of 0.07C per year," with the former rate of warming being fully 70%
greater than the most recent rate of warming. Last of all, Wood et al. (2010)
constructed a two-century (1802-2009) instrumental record of annual surface air

temperature within the Atlantic-Arctic boundary region, using data obtained from
recently published (Klingbjer and Moberg, 2003; Vinther et al., 2006) and historical
(Wahlen, 1886) sources that yielded four station-based composite time series that
pertain to Southwestern Greenland, Iceland, Tornedalen (Sweden) and Arkhangel'sk
(Russia). This operation added seventy-six years to the previously available record,
the credibility of which result, in Wood et al.'s words, "is supported by ice core
records, other temperature proxies, and historical evidence." And the U.S. and
Icelandic researchers determined that their newly extended temperature history
and their analysis of it revealed "an irregular pattern of decadal-scale temperature
fluctuations over the past two centuries," of which the early twentieth-century
warming (ETCW) event -- which they say "began about 1920 and persisted until
mid-century" -- was by far "the most striking historical example."

A2 Anthropogenic
Warming is natural- even if its the result of the greenhouse
effect that is caused by water vapor
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the
Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Winter Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf]
In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect
a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm
and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of
millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the
extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Suns neighborhood. Short
term changesthose occurring in a few yearsare caused by terrestrial factors
such as large volcanic explosions, which inject dust into the stratosphere, and the
phenomenon of El Nio, which depends on the variations in oceanic currents.
Thermal energy produced by natural radionuclides that are present in the 1kilometer-thick layer of the Earths crust, contributed about 117 kilojoules per year
per square meter of the primitive Earth. As a result of the decay of these long-lived
radionuclides, their annual contribution is now only 33.4 kilojoules per square
meter.10 This nuclear heat, however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial
factors, in comparison with the greenhouse effects caused by absorption by
some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the
Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average near-surface air temperature
would be 18C, and not +15C, as it is now. The most impor- tant among these
greenhouse gases is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent
of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2 , CH4 , CFCs,
N2O, and O3 ), the most important is CO2 , which contributes only 3 percent to
the total greenhouse effect.11, 12 The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect
may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent.13.

Warming isnt anthropogenic

Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
New evidence points to a larger role for solar forcing than the IPCC has
acknowledged. Likely mechanisms include perturbation of ocean currents,
tropospheric zonal mean-winds, and the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the
Earth. The IPCC underestimated the warming effect of chloroflourocarbons
(CFCs) prior to their gradual removal from the atmosphere following the

implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 2000. This could mean CO2

concentrations played a smaller role in the warming prior to that year, and could
help explain the global cooling trend since 2000. Other forcings and feedbacks
about which little is known (or acknowledged by the IPCC) include stratospheric
water vapor, volcanic and seismic activity, and enhanced carbon sequestration.

A2 Climate Models
Climate models suck- we cant know all of the things they claim
to know
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a
single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that
presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that
combine to determine the state of earth's climate into a set of mathematical
equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all
of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did -- which we
don't -- could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to
produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?

Climate models suck- there is no way there would be runaway

warming
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Climate models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the
twentieth century, fail to incorporate chemical and biological processes that
may be as important as the physical processes employed in the models, and often
diverge so greatly in their assumptions and findings that they cannot be said to
validate each other. Climate models fail to correctly simulate future precipitation
due to inadequate model resolution on both vertical and horizontal spatial scales,
a limitation that forces climate modelers to parameterize the large-scale effects
of processes that occur on smaller scales than their models are capable of
simulating. This is particularly true of physical processes such as cloud formation
and cloud-radiation interactions. The internal variability component of climate
change is strong enough to overwhelm any anthropogenic temperature signal
and generate global cooling periods (between 1946 and 1977) and global
warming periods (between 1977 and 2008), yet models typically underestimate or
leave out entirely this component, leading to unrealistic values of climate
sensitivity. Climate models fail to predict changes in sea surface temperature
and El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, two major drivers of the global
climate. There has been little or no improvement to the models in this regard since

the late-1990s. Climate models typically predict summer desiccation of soil

with higher temperatures, but real-world data show positive soil moisture trends
for regions that have warmed during the twentieth century. This is a serious
problem since accurate simulation of land surface states is critical to the skill of
weather and climate forecasts. While climate models produce a wide range of
climate sensitivity estimates based on the assumptions of their builders, estimates
based on real-world measurements find that a doubling of the atmospheres
CO2 concentration would result in only a 0.4 or 0.5 C rise in temperature.

A2 IPCC- Flawed Rainfall Models

IPCC wrong- they used flawed rainfall models
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Other studies have continued to demonstrate the difficulties models have in
simulating precipitation properties and trends. Kiktev et al. (2007), for example,
analyzed the abilities of five global coupled climate models that played important
roles in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report to simulate temporal trends over the
second half of the 20th century for five annual indices of precipitation extremes.
Their results revealed "low skill" or an "absence" of model skill.

A2 IPCC- Inconclusive
Even IPCC people think that study proved nothing
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute,
S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute, Diane Carol, Executive Editor The
Heartland Institute, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report: Foreward
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Mike Hulme (2009), a professor of climate change in the School of Environmental
Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2009 a book that
contained admissions of uncertainty rarely voiced by insiders of the climate
change research community. Hulme wrote, the three questions examined above
What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate?
What level of warming is dangerous? represent just three of a number of
contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change (p. 75). Hulme
also admitted, Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future
performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when
considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate
(p. 83). On the subject of the IPCCs credibility, he admitted it is governed by a
Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that
the Panels work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and
policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists
(p. 95). These are all basic talking points of global warming realists, which
invariably result in charges of denial and industry shill when expressed by
someone not in the alarmist camp. To see them written by Hulme reveals how the
debate has changed.

A2 IPCC- Flaws in Peer Review

The IPCC report may as well have not been peer reviewed
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute,
S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute, Diane Carol, Executive Editor The
Heartland Institute, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report: Foreward
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
In 2010, the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC), a scientific body
composed of the heads of national science academies around the world,
revealed crippling flaws in the IPCCs peer-review process. The IAC reported
(InterAcademy Council, 2010) that IPCC lead authors fail to give due
consideration to properly documented alternative views (p. 20), fail to
provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues
identified by the Review Editors (p. 21), and are not consider[ing] review
comments carefully and document[ing] their responses (p. 22). The IAC found
the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors and the
selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents (p. 18). Government
officials appoint scientists from their countries and do not always nominate the
best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not
know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more
weight than scientific qualifications (p. 18). The rewriting of the Summary for
Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activistsa problem called out by
global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the
media or policymakersis plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an
organization in the mainstream of alarmist climate change thinking. [M]any
were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessments findings, suggested in
the final Plenary, might be politically motivated, the auditors wrote, and the
scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report too political
(p. 25). Note especially this description by the IAC of how the consensus of
scientists is actually obtained by the IPCC: Plenary sessions to approve a
Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an allnight meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries
that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report
(p. 25). Another problem documented by the IAC that was noted in NIPCC-1 is the
use of phony confidence intervals and estimates of certainty in the
Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 2734). We knew this was make-believe, almost to
the point of a joke, when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong
(2006) on the science of forecasting makes it clear scientists cannot simply gather
around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and
then affix a number to it such as 80% confident. Yet this is how the IPCC
proceeds. The IAC authors say it is not an appropriate way to characterize
uncertainty (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors
recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called level of understanding
scale, which is mush-mouth for consensus. The IAC authors warn, also on p.
34, that conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible

to refute, and therefore statements of very high confidence will have little
substantive value. Finally, in a discussion of conflict of interest and disclosure,
the IAC noted, the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC
leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who
were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input about the
practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their
own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is
beyond the mandate of this review (p. 46). Too bad, because these are both big
issues and their presence in the report is an admission of more structural problems
with the IPCC.

A2 Idso Indicts
Just because the Idsos get paid by Heartland doesnt mean
they are hacks
Plumer 2012 [Brad 02/16 Washington Post Leaked docs offer insight into how
climate-skeptic groups operate http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groupsoperate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html]
4) Skeptic money doesnt necessarily corrupt, but it can amplify marginal
viewpoints. Its sometimes suggested that climate skeptics are somehow corrupted
because they take money from fossil-fuel interests and groups like Heartland. But
Craig Idso, a skeptical scientist who receives $11,600 a month from the Heartland
Institute, according to the documents, offers a more nuanced defense in his
interview with Andy Revkin. Idso says that he has long opposed the overwhelming
scientific consensus on climate change even before he was getting paid by
Heartland. That sounds plausible. Its doubtful that many skeptics meaningfully
alter their views in order to receive money from groups like Heartland. More likely,
the effect of all this money is to increase the visibility and reach of oncemarginalized folks who were already inclined to criticize climate science. (And, yes,
a persons funding sources have very little bearing on the actual merits of his or her
views.)

The Idsos are qualified

DAleo 2010 [Joseph is Executive Director of http://icecap.us, a former professor
of meteorology and climatology, the First Director of Meteorology at the Weather
Channel, and a fellow of the American Meteorology Society. February 14
Climategate: What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-what-did-phil-jones-actually-admit-was-hecorrect/]
The Idsos at CO2 Science have done a very thorough job documenting, using the
peer review literature, the existence of a global MWP. They have found data
published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43
different countries supporting the global Medieval Warm Period.

A2 Heartland Institute and NIPCC Indicts

Heartland Institute and the NIPCC are qualified
Bast and Taylor 2008 [Joseph L. James M. Heartland Institiute Fri, 19 Dec
Reply to RealClimate's Attacks on the NIPCC Climate Report
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/171267-Reply-to-RealClimate-s-Attacks-on-theNIPCC-Climate-Report]
On November 28, the global warming alarmist Web site "RealClimate" posted a
ridiculously lame attack by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt against "Nature, Not
Human Activity, Rules the Climate," the summary for policymakers of the 2008
report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The
NIPCC report was written by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. and an additional 23 contributors,
including some of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. The
paper references approximately 200 published papers and scientific reports in
support of its conclusions. It provides strong evidence that human activity is not
causing a global warming crisis. Mann and Schmidt call the NIPCC report
"dishonest" and "nonsense," a document "served up" by "S. Fred Singer and his
merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious 'Heartland
Institute')." But instead of critiquing the scientific arguments presented in the NIPCC
report, Mann and Schmidt simply dismiss and belittle them and refer readers mostly
to their own past blog comments. Time spent following those links reveals a
hodgepodge of opinions and superficial comments, a boatload of rhetoric, and very
little science--an entirely unsatisfactory way to support such serious charges. The
reference to financing seems intended to imply that the authors of the NIPCC report
were paid by The Heartland Institute, which is not true. RealClimate has been
informed of this, but hasn't corrected its false claim. To go on implying it anyway
tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the RealClimate authors. And
what about "the notorious 'Heartland Institute'"? It's a 24-year-old national nonprofit
organization that gets 95 percent of its funding from non-energy-related donors and
84 percent of its funding from non-corporate sources (in 2007). It has a long history
of publishing reliable scientific and economic analysis of global warming.
Heartland's credibility is certainly less questionable than that of RealClimate, a front
group created specifically to attack global warming skeptics by Fenton
Communications, a truly "notorious" PR agency.

A2 Paid By Oil Companies

Warming good authors arent paid for the by the oil companies
anymore
Plumer 2012 [Brad 02/16 Washington Post Leaked docs offer insight into how
climate-skeptic groups operate http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groupsoperate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html]
2) Big oil companies seem to be increasingly minor players in the skeptic arena.
Seven years ago, most climate-skeptic groups could be linked to money pouring out
of ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute see Chris Mooneys old
expose from 2005 for details. One notable point about the Heartland documents,
however, is that big oil companies dont seem to be major donors. The Koch
Charitable Foundation a conservative charity linked to one of the countrys
largest private oil refineries chipped in $25,000 in 2011, but that was devoted
specifically for a health care research program.* Exxon, for its part, stopped
donating back in 2006 after pressure from environmental groups (up to that point,
the oil giant had chipped in $675,000). Indeed, according to the documents, much
of the money comes from individual donors, particularly a person referred to as the
Anonymous Donor, who gave $14.26 million over the past six years (nearly half of
the groups revenue). Thats one possible signal that climate skepticism is no longer
the sole concern of self-interested fossil-fuel companies trying to fend off
regulations instead, its become a self-sustaining ideological endeavor, with no
shortage of committed backers.

A2 Climate Consensus
Experts dont actually think the climate debate is over- their
authors manipulate data too
Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute,
S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute, Diane Carol, Executive Editor The
Heartland Institute, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report: Foreward
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Just months after Hulmes book was released, a large cache of emails was leaked
by someone at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Climategate, as it has come to be known, revealed deliberate efforts by leading
scientific supporters of the IPCC, and of climate alarmism more generally, to
hide flaws in their evidence and analysis, keep skeptics from appearing in peerreviewed journals, and avoid sharing their data with colleagues seeking to
replicate their results (Bell, 2011; Sussman, 2010; Montford, 2010). The emails
reveal that important data underlying climate policy are missing or have been
manipulated. In February 2010, the BBCs environment analyst Roger Harrabin
posed a series of written questions to Philip D. Jones, director of the Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the person responsible
for maintaining the IPCCs all important climate temperature records (BBC, 2010).
Jones appeared to back away from many of the foundational positions of the IPCC,
admitting for example: The rates of global warming from 18601880, 1910
1940 and 19751998, and 19752009 are similar and not statistically
significantly different from each other.

You consensus arguments are no longer true

Bast, Karnick and Bast 2011 [Joseph L. President of the Heartland Institute,
S.T. Research Director The Heartland Institute, Diane Carol, Executive Editor The
Heartland Institute, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report: Foreward
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (2010) released their latest
international survey of climate scientists in 2010. The survey, which was actually
conducted in 2007, consisted of 120 questions. Typical is question 11a, which
asked scientists to rank data availability for climate change analysis on a scale
from 1 (very inadequate) to 7 (very adequate). More respondents said very
inadequate (1 or 2) than very adequate (6 or 7), with most responses ranging
between 3 and 5. About 40 percent scored it a 3 or less. This single question and
its answers imply that we need to know more about how climates actually work
before we can predict future climate conditions. The roughly bell-shaped
distribution of answers is repeated for about a third of the 54 questions
addressing scientific issues (as opposed to opinions about the IPCC, where
journalists get their information, personal identification with environmental

causes, etc.). Answers to the other questions about science were divided almost
equally between distributions that lean toward skepticism and those that lean
toward alarmism. What this means is that for approximately two-thirds of the
questions asked, scientific opinion is deeply divided, and in half of those cases,
most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist
case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global
warming scare. The questions for which most scientists give alarmist answers are
those that ask for an opinion about the big picture, such as How convinced
are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to
humanity? These questions ask about beliefs and convictions, not discrete
scientific facts or knowledge. When asked questions about narrower scientific
matters, scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. This survey, like
previous ones done by Bray and von Storch, provided a fascinating look at
cognitive dissonance in the scientific community. When asked, majorities of
climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the
theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, yet large
majorities of those same scientists say they nevertheless believe in the theory and
its predictions. This cognitive dissonance gives rise to and sustains a popular
mass delusion.

A2 Warming Bad Authors- Theyre Hacks

There is plenty of money on the warming bad side too
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the
Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Winter Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf]
In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: To capture the public imagination . . . we
have to . . . make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts
one might have. . . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective and being honest.3 This turned out to be an effective policy: Since
1997, each of approximately 2,000 American climate scientists (only 60 of them
with Ph.D. degrees) received an average of $1 million annually for research;4, 5
on a world scale, the annual budget for climate research runs to $5 billion.6 It is
interesting that in the United States, most of this money goes toward discovering
the change of global climate and its causes, while Europeans apparently believe
that man-made warming is already on, and spend money mostly on studying the
effects of warming.

Warming bad authors are a product of money and UN mandate

Jaworowski 2010 [Zbigniew, Ph. D., M.D., D.Sc., has researched the
atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for
many years, and is the author of numerous publications on climate change. He
serves as the Polish representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) January 15, Global Warming: A Lie
Aimed At Destroying Civilization EIR Science and Technology
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf]
Indeed, these researchers are guilty of brazen fraud, bringing us into a trap, which
has dire consequences. For many years they have been incredibly confident,
ignoring any criticism of their arguments. But they had the overwhelming support
of the United Nations, and specifically the IPCC, the United Nations group charged
with examining the impact of human activities on climate change, which takes the
lead in all this confusion. The IPCC thesis is based on research from the CRU.
Scientists from the University of East Anglia have at their disposal enormous sums
of money and political support. In practice, they simply obey the dictates of the
United Nations, which is promoting the global warming initiative, in order to
suppress the development of industry, which they claim is destroying the Biosphere
of the Earth.

A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Now Not

Unprecedented
No catastrophic warming and its not human caused- past
temperatures were hotter and we didnt cause them nor die
from them
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Evidence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) approximately 1,000 years ago, when
there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently,
would show there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about recent
temperatures. Such evidence is now overwhelming. New evidence not
reported in NIPCC-1 finds the Medieval Warm Period occurred in North America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Antarctica, and the Northern Hemisphere.
Despite this evidence, Mann et al. (2009) continue to understate the true level of
warming during the MWP by cherry-picking proxy and instrumental records.
Research from locations around the world reveals a significant period of elevated
air temperatures that immediately preceded the Little Ice Age, during a time that
has come to be known as the Little Medieval Warm Period. Recent
reconstructions of climate history find the human influence does not stand out
relative to other, natural causes of climate change. While global warming theory
and models predict polar areas would warm most rapidly, the warming of
Greenland was 33 percent greater in magnitude in 19191932 than it was in 1994
2007, and Antarctica cooled during the second half of the twentieth century.
Perlwitz et al. (2009) reported a decade-long decline (19982007) in globally
averaged temperatures from the record heat of 1998 and noted U.S.
temperatures in 2008 not only declined from near-record warmth of prior years,
but were in fact colder than the official 30-year reference climatology and
further were the coldest since at least 1996. New research disputes IPCCs
claim that it has ferreted out all significant influences of the worlds many and
diverse urban heat islands from the temperature databases they use to portray
the supposedly unprecedented warming of the past few decades.

Current temperatures are historically low- your evidence is

only a shapshot of a broader trend
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon

Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
The claim: With respect to air temperature, the climate-alarmist contention is
multifaceted. It is claimed that over the past several decades: (a) earth's
temperature has risen to a level that is unprecedented over the past millennium or
more, (b) the world has been warming at a rate that is equally unprecedented, and
(c) both of these dubious achievements have been made possible by the similarly
unprecedented magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, due to humanity's everincreasing burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. With respect to the level
of warmth the earth has recently attained, it is important to see how it compares
with prior temperatures experienced by the planet, in order to determine the degree
of "unprecedentedness" of its current warmth. Taking a rather lengthy view of the
subject, Petit et al. (1999) found that peak temperatures experienced during the
current interglacial, or Holocene, have been the coldest of the last five interglacials,
with the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene being, on average, more than
2C warmer (see figure at right). And in a more recent analysis of the subject, Sime
et al. (2009) suggested that the "maximum interglacial temperatures over the past
340,000 years were between 6.0C and 10.0C above present-day values." If
anything, therefore, these findings suggest that temperatures of the Holocene, or
current interglacial, were indeed unusual, but not unusually warm. Quite to the
contrary, they have been unusually cool.

Warming will not cause extinction- the Medieval Warm period

was just as bad- models that say otherwise are wrong
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Zooming in a little closer to the present, we compare earth's modern temperatures
with those of the past 1000 years, where the IPCC bases its claim for recent
heretofore-unreached high temperatures on the infamous "hockey stick"
temperature history of Mann et al. (1998, 1999). There is a problem with this
history, however, in that reconstructed temperatures derived from a variety of
proxy data (which make up the bulk of the temperature history) are replaced near
its end with the historical record of directly-measured temperatures, resulting in an
"apples vs. oranges" type of comparison, where the latter cannot be validly
compared with the former, because the two types of data are not derived in the
same way and are, therefore, not perfectly compatible with each other. In addition,
subsequent evidence indicated that the reconstructed temperatures of some
regions did not rise as dramatically as their directly-measured values did over the
latter part of the 20th century (Cook et al., 2004), demonstrating the importance of
the problem and suggesting that if there had been any directly-measured
temperatures during the earlier part of the past millennium, they may also have

been higher than the reconstructed temperatures of that period. Therefore, due to
this divergence problem, as D'Arrigo et al. (2008) have described it, reconstructions
based on tree-ring data from certain regions "cannot be used to directly compare
past natural warm periods (notably, the Medieval Warm Period) with recent 20th
century warming, making it more difficult to state unequivocally that the recent
warming is unprecedented." In a much improved method of temperature
reconstruction based on tree-ring analysis, Esper et al. (2002) employed an
analytical technique that allows accurate long-term climatic trends to be derived
from individual tree-ring series that are of much shorter duration than the potential
climatic oscillation being studied; and they applied this technique to over 1200
individual tree-ring series derived from fourteen different locations scattered across
the extratropical region of the Northern Hemisphere. This work revealed, as they
describe it, that "past comparisons of the Medieval Warm Period with the 20thcentury warming back to the year 1000 have not included all of the Medieval Warm
Period and, perhaps, not even its warmest interval." And in further commenting on
this important finding, Briffa and Osborn (2002) revealed that "an early period of
warmth in the late 10th and early 11th centuries is more pronounced than in
previous large-scale reconstructions." In addition, the Esper et al. record made it
abundantly clear that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was fully
equivalent to the warmth of the present. In another important study, von Storch et
al. (2004) demonstrated that past variations in real-world temperature "may have
been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions," and
in commenting on their findings, Osborn and Briffa (2004) stated that "if the true
natural variability of Northern Hemisphere temperature is indeed greater than is
currently accepted," which they appeared to suggest is likely the case, "the extent
to which recent warming can be viewed as 'unusual' would need to be reassessed."
And more recently, Mann et al. (2009) have had to admit that even using the
"apples vs. oranges" approach, the warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic,
Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America during the
Medieval Warm Period was "comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two
decades in some regions."

A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Models Indict

The models that suggest that current warming is unique are
the worst- better models that take into account more
comparable variables say now is not unique
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Ljungqvist also notes that "decadal mean temperatures in the extra-tropical
Northern Hemisphere seem to have equaled or exceeded the AD 1961-1990 mean
temperature level during much of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm
Period," and he says that "the second century, during the Roman Warm Period, is
the warmest century during the last two millennia," while adding that "the highest
average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth
century," which was during the Medieval Warm Period. He warns, however, that the
temperature of the last two decades "is possibly higher than during any previous
time in the past two millennia," but adds that "this is only seen in the instrumental
temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself," which is akin to
saying that this possibility only presents itself if one applies Michael Mann's "Nature
trick" of comparing "apples and oranges," which is clearly not valid, as discussed
earlier in this report. This new study of Ljungqvist is especially important in that it
utilizes, in his words, "a larger number of proxy records than most previous
reconstructions," and because it "substantiates an already established history of
long-term temperature variability." All of these facts, taken together, clearly
demonstrate that there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothing
unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as
warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and
Medieval Warm Periods, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than
100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the
realization that earth's climate naturally transits back and forth between cooler and
warmer conditions on a millennial timescale, demonstrates that there is absolutely
no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher
atmospheric CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out climatealarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth is to associate it
with the greenhouse effect of CO2. That claim -- for which there is no supporting
evidence, other than misplaced trust in climate models -- is unsound.

A2 Warming Hurts Biodiversity- Flawed Models

Your Biodiversity studies are flawed- difference between fine
and coarse grid scales
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
In discussing their findings, Randin et al. suggested that the vastly different results
they obtained when using fine and coarse grid scales might help to explain what
they call the Quaternary Conundrum, i.e. "why fewer species than expected went
extinct during glacial periods when models predict so many extinctions with similar
amplitude of climate change (Botkin et al., 2007)." In addition, they noted that
"coarse-resolution predictions based on species distribution models are commonly
used in the preparation of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change," which are then used by "conservation planners, managers, and other
decision makers to anticipate Biodiversity losses in alpine and other systems across
local, regional, and larger scales," but which, unfortunately, give a highly-warped
and erroneous view of the subject.

A2 Ocean Acidification
Estimates of ocean acidification are overblown
Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
The chemistry aspect of the ocean acidification hypothesis is rather straightforward,
but it is not as solid as many make it out to be; and a number of respected
researchers have published papers demonstrating that the drop in oceanic pH will
not be nearly as great as the IPCC and others predict it will be, nor that it will be as
harmful as they claim it will be. Consider, for example, the figure below, which
shows historical and projected fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2
concentrations out to the year 2500, as calculated by NOAA's Pieter Tans (2009). As
can be seen there, his analysis indicates that the air's CO2 concentration will peak
well before 2100, and at only 500 ppm compared to the 800 ppm value predicted in
one of the IPCC's scenarios. And it is also worth noting that by the time the year
2500 rolls around, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration actually drops back down to
about what it is today. When these emissions estimates are transformed into
reductions of oceanic pH, it can readily be seen in the following figure that Tans'
projected pH change at 2100 is far less than that of the IPCC. And Tans' analysis
indicates a pH recovery to values near those of today by the year 2500, clearly
suggesting that things are not the way the world's climate alarmists make them out
to be, especially when it comes to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their effects on
the air's CO2 content and oceanic pH values.

The fish will adapt to ocean acidification

Idso and Idso 2011 Craig D. (founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) Sherwood B. (president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) February Carbon
Dioxide and Earths Future Pursuing the Prudent Path
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf.
Two other phenomena that suggest the predicted decline in oceanic pH will have
little to no lasting negative effects on marine life are the abilities of essentially all
forms of life to adapt and evolve. Of those experiments in the database that report
the length of time the organisms were subjected to reduced pH levels, for example,
the median value was only four days. And many of the experiments were conducted
over periods of only a few hours, which is much too short a time for organisms to
adapt or evolve to successfully cope with new environmental conditions. And when
one allows for such phenomena -- as oceanic pH declines ever-so-slowly in the real
world of nature -- the possibility of marine life experiencing a negative response to
ocean acidification becomes even less likely (Idso, 2009).

CO2 doesnt cause acidification and it doesnt kill everything in

the ocean anyways
Idso, Carter and Singer 2011 [Craig D. Ph.D Chairman for the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Robert M. Ph.D Adjunct Research
Fellow James Cook University, S. Fred Ph.D President of Science and Environmental
Policy Project, Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
The IPCC expresses concern that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are
lowering the pH values of oceans and seas, a process called acidification, and
that this could harm aquatic life. But the drop in pH values that could be attributed
to CO2 is tiny compared to natural variations occurring in some ocean basins as
a result of seasonal variability, and even day-to-day variations in many areas.
Recent estimates also cut in half the projected pH reduction of ocean waters by the
year 2100 (Tans, 2009). Real-world data contradict predictions about the
negative effects of rising temperatures, rising CO2 concentrations, and falling pH
on aquatic life. Studies of algae, jellyfish, echinoids, abalone, sea urchins, and
coral all find no harmful effects attributable to CO2 or acidification.

A2 Warming Causes Resource Wars

No resource wars from warming
Jaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the
Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Winter Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate 21st Century Science Tech
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf]
The strongest fears of the population concern the melting of mountain glaciers and
parts of the Greenland and Antarctic continental glaciers, which supposedly would
lead to a rise in the oceanic level by 29 centimeters in 2030, and by 71 cm in
2070. Some forecasts predict that this increase of ocean levels could reach even
367 cm.24 In this view, islands, coastal regions, and large metropolitan cities
would be flooded, and whole nations would be forced to migrate. On October 10,
1991, The New York Times announced that as soon as 2000, the rising ocean level
would compel the emigration of a few million people. Doomsayers preaching the
horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a
few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive atolls nor the
Pacific archipelagos were flooded. Global oceanic levels have been rising for some
hundreds or thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not clear). In
the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20 cm,24 but it does not
seem to be accelerated by the 20th Century warming. It turns out that in warmer
climates, there is more water that evaporates from the ocean (and subsequently
falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps) than there is water that
flows to the seas from melting glaciers.17